DCHN subtypes - decision-making

So Gulenko has found more than 2 subtypes and believes in some people the Suggestive and even the Polr function can be "accessed" much easier and thus can explain intratype differences. I don't know if there's any other socionist supporting this theory. I'm fine with the idea as long as it explains deviations from a stereotypical image found in basic type descriptions. However I cannot see if this "strengthening of a function" only determines some behavior by far resembling another temperament, for example, EP traits in an EJ or is actually involved in decision-making / judgement. What is your take on the DCHN system considering your experiences with people on Socioforums or offline? Is it just a matter of interests or style (e.g. a more stable Ip, a more proactive Ij) or a specific function outside the ego block actually interferes with the main judging / perception function to the point of playing the main part in decision-making.

Three pairs of dichotomies
First dichotomy: contact/distance.
The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance. Into the contact category will fall clearly expressed extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. Distant will be clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of vertness is thus split into four gradations.
Second dichotomy: terminating/initiating.
I understand terminating as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating, as the opposite tendency to initiate and to easily move on to something else, with corresponding disorder in matters and affairs. As you see, these are the concrete definitions of the usual dichotomy rationality/ irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that in the house of any rational reigns pristine order, that it clearly plans all, and that all irrationals throw everything to the side and are burdened by planning. In reality, two intervening gradations are frequently encountered between these extreme poles.
In the terminating pole belong clearly expressed rationals and orderly irrationals. Initiating behavior is possessed by clearly expressed irrationals and disorderly rationals.
And the third additional dichotomy is connecting/ignoring.
The level of sensitivity to changes in the environment is assumed to be the basis of this scale. Connectors are very sensitive to such changes, whereas ignorers, as the name suggests, are capable of turning no attention towards this.
This polarity is the subtype refinement of the classical dichotomy dynamic/static. Combining these three scales, we obtain the following four subtypes:
contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).

You know, when I started getting into Jungian theories, I found Socionics interesting, but saw DCHN and thought it contradicted the theory and the basis behind Jung's psychological types. So I ignored it. But I've come to understand what Gulenko was getting at now and it reconciles why some people have completely different relations with people, despite being typed as relatively incompatible with certain types.

For example, I have an LII instructor that gets along with an SLE instructor. They are great friends and this LII doesn't at all relate to a socionics Se-PoLR. In fact, he often breaks rules just to see how people will react and thinks being sensitive and in the Army a contradiction. He was originally a field medic and a very good one, which is funny because that is typically not something someone who is supposed to be Se-PoLR would want to do or even like doing. But he acts like an extrovert, kind of like an LIE, except that he tries so hard to simplify and explain everything while putting everything into a big overview that it becomes obvious that he's probably not Te, is pretty big on Ti and is clearly a very expressed introvert because he does have the IJ temperament and is very heavy on Ti (he reminds me of brennan from the show Bones). He'll talk about how he wants us to know how to learn to figure things out and not to memorize. He doesn't like if people read from a book when answering questions or reading definitions. He will explain and understand politics in a way that shows a great understanding of human behavior, language, history, and social dynamics, something that seems to reflect having a great deal of knowledge linked with a deeply thought out intuition that can piece all of those dynamics together in a very deep and intelligent manner. He does however have a tendency to oversimplify things he is not interesting in knowing about or feels is unimportant, something I've seen Ti types sometimes get into trouble with doing.

But he fits really well into the C subtype, contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C) and gets along well with the SLE that seems to be a C subtype as well. It's weird, but this stuff kind of makes sense. But then again I guess that kind of makes him more like an ILE with the SLE in terms of relations, so I suppose that would make sense. But, I don't know.

I think just about everything can be explain away when we complicate Socionics enough. I've thought myself every ExTx toe at some point, and each time (including now) I've explained away the parts that don't fit.

I found this stuff in Beta and it was a bit confusing : http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-descriptions. Especially when you don't know if it's something a user simply pulled out of his hat on the spot or relies on something more or less "scientific". I think Gulenko speak of different "functional strength", too, not only behavior along the lines of those dichotomies. In this user's attempt I have a hard time seeing how come both LSI - Se and LSI - Ti are associated with E 6. And why E 5 only with LSI - Ni. Most of my questions about the DCHN spring from other types met irl where the diversity was overwhelming.